StanBalaban Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Before this happened I wrote this The club doesn't really owe the owner any money for his spending in any meaningful way. Effectively, all he's done is increase the amount of money he's paid for the club...it only really affects the profit or loss Lerner will make when he sells the club. Ultimately, it's his problem rather than ours.I wish that were so. I don't think it quite is though. Money borrowed from the Family Trust has to be paid back. He could pay it back from his own money, but that lent money is not "his". I think I'm right in saying that the people who run the trust legally have to safeguard the money it holds. So yes they can agree to lend it out, but they also have a duty to recover it. If that's right, then it'll have to be paid back. I think what he did was write off all the interest on the loans, by paying it himself, rather than the club having to pay it back, but I still think the actual capital will have to be repaid, and that'll (I think) come from operating profit. In other words, now the wages are under control, the profit the club makes will in part if not in full go to paying back those loans, and probably over a period of years, unless he either sells up, or decides to pay it from his personal funds.. Which was and is my thinking - by doing that last bit - paying it off himself, it meanspotentially the money the club makes could goto playingresources instead of being used to pay off the debt he's now paid off himself. That's a major, major plus. Yep this is my view too, on the assumption that the source of funds is actually from Randy himself. Assuming it is, the operating profits from the business can ow be reinvested into the business as opposed to servicing the debt. This doesn't mean we're suddenly very cash rich, as we'll probably be spending within the means of naturally generated revenue. Be interested to see when this starts to take place however. Edited January 9, 2014 by StanBalaban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford. But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs. I don't know how he gets away with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Another alternative could be that this investment has provided us with a lift paving the way for a new owner to give us wings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford. But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs. I don't know how he gets away with that. Well, for you it clearly isn't enough that he spends £90m of his own money on the club. That's a lot of money, you're aware of that, aren't you? He's made a few mistakes, definitely, but even when he tries to pay for them you're not happy about it. And we haven't even seen the actual result yet. We only know that for some reason he's put in £90m in the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 9, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2014 I can't give him kudos if this action has no impact on the playing side otherwise its just a very wealthy man sorting out his finances with money he can easily afford. Accepting it's a hypothetical "if" (because I think it will enable manager(s) to have more money for players than otherwise) I take your point. It's not an entirely unreasonable view. As fans we want to see our team play well and win, and when it doesn't we look to manager and owner as to why it's not doing so. We pay our money, and we want to see something good for that money and those motorway miles and train journeys and emotional involvement and the support we give. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 For example at the end of 2011/12 season Everton had earned £7 million more than us from TV money. Newcastle earned £12 million more than us from TV money. Sunderland, Swansea and Fulham all earned more. And I'd imagine last year would have seen similar results and another low league position this year will see more and more. So Lerner is making our position worse and weaker if we're going to spend what we can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford. But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs. I don't know how he gets away with that. Well, for you it clearly isn't enough that he spends £90m of his own money on the club. That's a lot of money, you're aware of that, aren't you? He's made a few mistakes, definitely, but even when he tries to pay for them you're not happy about it. And we haven't even seen the actual result yet. We only know that for some reason he's put in £90m in the club. I'm not saying it won't be nothing. If it leads to an increase in spending and an improvement in backing the manager great. But if it doesn't. What's it done? Why would you be so impressed with him for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 9, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2014 spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford. But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs. He's just done something about it. 90 million somethings, actually. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I know we're going round in circles but that's only if it does lead to an increase in the backing given to the manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford. But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs. I don't know how he gets away with that. Well, for you it clearly isn't enough that he spends £90m of his own money on the club. That's a lot of money, you're aware of that, aren't you? He's made a few mistakes, definitely, but even when he tries to pay for them you're not happy about it. And we haven't even seen the actual result yet. We only know that for some reason he's put in £90m in the club. I'm not saying it won't be nothing. If it leads to an increase in spending and an improvement in backing the manager great. But if it doesn't. What's it done? Why would you be so impressed with him for it? Why I'd be impressed with him putting in £90m in the club? Well, for a starter no one else that I'm aware of has done it. It's a shite load of money and it's for our benefit, one way or another. If it is to pay up our debts it's like him holding up his hands saying: "Sorry, I've made some mistakes. I pay back the most of what it's cost here." When I read through this forum I realise it's not that easy just to admit a mistake or more, or being wrong about something. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 9, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2014 For example at the end of 2011/12 season Everton had earned £7 million more than us from TV money. Newcastle earned £12 million more than us from TV money. Sunderland, Swansea and Fulham all earned more. And I'd imagine last year would have seen similar results and another low league position this year will see more and more. So Lerner is making our position worse and weaker if we're going to spend what we can afford. I won't and couldn't argue that the past 3 years have been anything other than horrible, most of the time, from a Villa watching view. And you're right that one of the consequences is that other clubs have taken advantage and benefitted from us being rubbish. My outlook is what can be done to improve things, and definitely IMO, getting rid of 90 million of debt is a wholly beneficial step on that path. So yes, things have been bad and Randy is ultimately responsible as the custodian of the club ( though not for every mistake that all kinds of people have made) at least for sizeable part of the slump - He's also been let down, mind. But he's done something good. So I am pleased. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford. But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs. He's just done something about it. 90 million somethings, actually. I know we're going round in circles but that's only if it does lead to an increase in the backing given to the manager. More money != success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Put simply bobzy, yes it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 It's a shite load of money and it's for our benefit, one way or another. If it is to pay up our debts it's like him holding up his hands saying: "Sorry, I've made some mistakes Great. How does that add to my enjoyment? Will I walk away from villa park after a loss and awful performance feeling better because of this. Lerner is nothing to me, I will never meet the man or see him in the flesh. I don't pay money or give up my time to watch him. He is the owner of the club I love, if he's not doing that job well then I couldn't give a shit what else he does. spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford.But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs.He's just done something about it. 90 million somethings, actually. I know we're going round in circles but that's only if it does lead to an increase in the backing given to the manager. More money != success. Yes. That's premier league football I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 But he's done something good. So I am pleased. Enough to make up for the way he's run us and the fact he's now made it harder for us to compete with other teams? Hopefully it will lead to a better level of spending and will start making up for his errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Put simply bobzy, yes it does. Q.P.R. disagree with you. Edit: Of course, obscene amounts of money so you can attract any player in the world does = success. Edited January 9, 2014 by bobzy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Put simply bobzy, yes it does. Q.P.R. disagree with you. Edit: Of course, obscene amounts of money so you can attract any player in the world does = success. Surely you agree the manager requires more backing and the ability to offer better wages in order to give him the best chance to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Put simply bobzy, yes it does. Q.P.R. disagree with you. Edit: Of course, obscene amounts of money so you can attract any player in the world does = success. Surely you agree the manager requires more backing and the ability to offer better wages in order to give him the best chance to succeed. Of course, I'd just rather we did it sustainably rather than throwing more money at the problem. The £90m, whichever way you look at it, is a positive move. There's just nothing negative about it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dappadan Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Another alternative could be that this investment has provided us with a lift paving the way for a new owner to give us wings! I think you got this right mate. I would not be surprised if a certain somebody has put this money up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 spend accordingto what the CLUB (as opposed to owner, personally) can afford. But then his poor running of the club is resulting in us earning less, especially with new TV revenue, than teams we were competing with. He has to be held responsible for that and if our aim is to spend within our means then he's significantly damaged us from now being able to compete with other clubs. He's just done something about it. 90 million somethings, actually. I know we're going round in circles but that's only if it does lead to an increase in the backing given to the manager. More money != success. Put simply bobzy, yes it does. As we've seen before it depends on who is spending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts